THE heartache and pain that must be felt by 37-year-old mother of two Michelle Hilton knowing that she has life threatening breast cancer can only be guessed at by most of us.

The stress her situation also imposes on the rest of her family is almost unimaginable.

In such a situation, then, it seems unseemly, to put it mildly, that she should have had to plead publicly to be allowed to take a new drug that was passed as safe for use in this country two years ago and has been used by women in the United States for four years.

And when no less a person than Prof Gordon McVie, director general of the Cancer Research Campaign, says that bureaucracy in introducing the drug is putting lives at risk the situation seems nothing short of scandalous.

The financial resources of the NHS are, of course, under extraordinary pressure and very careful and difficult decisions have to be made when any newly developed drug goes on the market at a very expensive price per dose.

What, however, are we to make of the postponement of the granting of expected approval by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence from July to November.

As Prof McVie suggests it might appear that rather than make the difficult decisions those responsible have simply been playing for time to save money. "It is the same old story of drugs that can be of benefit not being made quickly available by the Government," he says.

Officials will have saved money if estimates that the drug could cost the NHS £10m a year are correct but only by bureaucratic prevarication.

Such inaction and indecision is inexcusable because of its effect on those who see a drug like Herceptin as an opportunity to at least extend a life.

How, to put it bluntly, do you explain to children that their mother's life might have been saved if she had lived in the trial areas of Merseyside or Birmingham? 'Sorry but you have lost out in the postcode lottery' perhaps?

As Prof McVie says "every patient deserves to find out whether they can benefit from it."